environmental policy research paper final submission

2013

Richard Stockton College of New Jersey

Jessica E Webster

[FARMER ASSURANCE PROVISION] Short Term Benefits vs. Long Term Risks

Farmer Assurance Provision 1

The Farmer Assurance Provision provides short term economic satisfaction to

biotechnology corporations, farmers, and consumers while risking potential long term health and

environmental effects. The provision provides temporary deregulation of genetically modified

(GM) crops until the environmental assessment has been completed (H. R. 933, 2013). Allowing

GM crops to be planted, grown, and harvested has a short term economic gain, which seems to

be the reason for this appropriations rider. The legislation allows biotechnology corporations to

continue to sell their products to farmers. This could allow farmers to save money on labor,

pesticides, and herbicides, while maximizing profit yield; which could lead to a drop in

consumer prices. These short term economic gains are beneficial to the overall economy of the

country. However, the farmer assurance provision could lead to unintended health and

environmental consequences. The potential health effect from the ingestion of GM food has not

been documented well. Environmental changes have already begun to take place in parts of the

country. It only takes one leak, one gene transfer, one plant, or one wind gust to pose a possible

environmental threat.

The driving force of this legislation came from the Supreme Court case Center of Food

Safety vs. Vilsack. The conclusion of the case resulted in the banning of further planting of GM

sugar beet crops because the US Department of Agriculture did not complete an adequate

environmental assessment before approving the use of the GM sugar beet seeds. Multiple

hearings were held regarding the assessment. During the final hearing in September 2010, Judge

Jeffrey S. White banned the future planting of GM sugar beet crops. The USDA requested a

nine month deregulation to prepare for interim measures; however, Judge White denied the

request due to the amount of time that had already passed since the first hearing (CFS V TJV,

2010). Monsanto, the leading biotechnology corporation in the world, worked very closely with

Missouri’s Republican Senator Roy Blunt to draft the political policy (Rogers, 2013). The new

bill was an appropriations rider inserted into the Consolidated and Further Continuing

Appropriations Act, which needed to be passed in order for the country’s budget to pass (H.R.

933, 2013). Submitted anonymously, the legislation was passed without a question asked

(Rogers, 2013).


Corporations that manufacture GM seeds hold a high financial stake in the policy making

for GM foods. Corporations like Monsanto, Delagra, and Germany’s Klein Wanzlebener

Saatzucht (KWS) Saat Ag manufacture the modified seed technology and rely on the farmers to

purchase and utilize the seeds. Genetics of high demand crops have undergone manipulation for

multiple reasons over the decades. According to Leighton Jones (1999), the list includes but is

not limited to: manipulating for drought and weather resistance, pest resistance, disease

resistance, higher yields, larger produce, prolonged shelf life, reduction of allergens, altered

physical characteristics and the creation of new species. All of these alterations can be summed

up into one giant reason, economic efficiency.

The Monsanto Corporation became well known in the 1970s with the marketing of

Round Up, an herbicide containing glyphosate, which will allow farmers to spray on the crops to

kill the surrounding weeds without compromising the crop. The company became the leading

corporation in GM technology with the introduction of “Round Up Ready” crops, which allowed

Round Up to be marketable. Crops treated with this are resistant to Round Up. This agricultural

biotechnology allowed farmers to save time and money on weed killers and removers. Monsanto

patents the seed technology and collects royalties when the products are sold. Without the

consumers to drive the farmer’s sales, Monsanto and similar companies would fail due to lack of

demand. In order to insure a hefty profit, farmers must be able to meet the demands of the

population, while simultaneously cutting costs.

Farmers utilize various environmental services to aid in the maturing of their crops

reducing their overall economic input. Conventional crops rely largely on precipitation for

irrigation. Rain will moisten the soil and provide the necessary water for the roots and leaves to

grow. Soil chemistry is just as important as irrigation. The soil provides the nutrients necessary

for the seed to germinate, grow, flower and fruit. The roots gather minerals in the soil to provide

a nutrient transport to the vegetative parts of the plant (Hodson & Bryant, 2012). ). The

downfall of relying on nature is that the weather has become increasingly more unpredictable

with the changing climate. Farming has become a more unpredictable enterprise than usual.

Farmers take a large economic risk by relying on nature’s processes to supply the necessities to

grow their crops. Accounting for bad weather, farmers could supplement by other means.


However, these enhancements would lead to a much larger economic input, driving consumer

prices upward. With the ban lifted off of GM crops, farmers will be able to plant a GM crop and

expect a sizable crop yield with variable weather, creating a wider profit margin. The bigger the

profits, the more crops planted the more of a need for herbicides to protect the plants. Protected

plants could lead to higher return of product and farmers are that much closer to consumer

demand.

Farmers have been worried whether there are enough conventional seeds to meet

consumer demand (de Ponti, Rijk & Van Ittersum, 2012). The American population is growing

at an exponential rate; the population increases by one half of a percent annually (Haub &

Kaneda, 2013). A larger population calls for increased food production. Farmers struggle on an

annual basis to meet consumer demands with the use of conventional seeds (de Ponti, et al.,

2012). With demand for certain crops on the rise, high yield and crop assurance is a key factor

when a farmer chooses which seeds to buy. With this in mind, farmers turn to GM seeds to

guarantee a crop to meet increased demand. “Farmers elect to pay more for seeds that will

produce higher yields, require less chemical inputs, reduce labor, and shrink the environmental

footprint of agriculture” (Chassy, 2007). Crops that are modified for pest resistance are an

economic gold mine for farmers. With deregulation of GM crops, prices may potentially

decrease over time. One example of a crop high in demand is sugar. The need for sugar has

been on the rise since the population was educated that high fructose corn syrup is bad for you.

(Dohlman & Haley, 2009).

Though farmers work hard to meet their finances, the farmers who have not met the

demand are compensated through the farm bill. This bill aids farmers in meeting their budget so

production can continue for another year (H.R. 2642, 2013). Farmers do not have the luxury of

regulating the current supply of crops with the current demand. The economic market works by

a balance of supply and demand. When a product is in high demand, suppliers try to achieve,

through various measures, a way to meet this demand and can generally adjust accordingly.

Farmers must anticipate the demand of a crop in order to meet their budget. Conventional

farming is an extremely environmentally dependent practice, from soil chemistry to the

hydrological cycle to the hands that farm. One element of change could cause a drastic


difference in crop yield. But, if a farmer were to use a seed that was modified to survive in

drought, deter pests, and guarantee produce then the crop may be able to withstand several

elemental changes and still produce a higher yield than a conventional crop. Monsanto has

manufactured a seed technology that is highly valuable to farmers because it is able to do all of

these things.

The federal government places large subsidies on food and agriculture for the consumers;

which allow citizens to purchase food at a much lower price than what other countries charge for

the crop and crop derivatives (Hossay, 2013). A study was done on the removal of GM soybeans

from the economic system and it was showed that the removal of the GM crop did not affect the

prices of the commodity (Parcell & Kalaitzandonakes, 2004). This was not the case with GM

sugar beets. The sugar shortage from the ban of GM sugar beets in 2011 was estimated by the

USDA to cost consumers 2.97 billion dollars (Reding, 2010). The price of the crop during a GM

ban will depend on the purpose of the crop. Crops like corn and sugar that have multiple uses

will rise in price if the GM crop were to be banned.

The final component of the equation is the consumer. The United States governs as a risk

society, while other governments take on the precautionary principle. The European Union and

Mexico are more skeptical about the risks of GM foods. The American consumer will listen to

multiple claims about genetically modified foods and choose to believe the claim from the

organization they feel is most trustworthy based on their current attitude towards modified foods.

However, the more consumers read about modified foods, the more wary they are about their

food choices (Frewer, Scholderer & Bredahl, 2003). Genetically modified crops can only

survive in the economy if there is a demand for them.

Documentation of the immediate consequences of ingesting the GM crop is nonexistent

due to the US Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) inadequate method for GM safety testing.

The FDA has deemed genetically modified food as ‘inherently safe’ or GRAS (Generally

Recognized as Safe). The FDA is responsible for the safety regulation of foods to be consumed

by a human or animal. Safety tests are performed on altered foods if it is ‘significantly different’

from its natural counterpart (Kuiper & Kleter, 2001). If one were to look at a genetically

modified ear of corn next to a conventional ear of corn, one would not be able to tell the


difference. The composition of the GM crop is analyzed and if it yields similar results to the

composition of the conventional crop, no further testing is done. The only physical difference is

that the GM ear of corn may be slightly bigger than the conventional ear of corn. From this

notion, the FDA rarely does safety tests on GM crops because there is no significant difference

from the conventional crops. When the FDA does perform safety tests on the modified foods, it

is over an observation period of ninety days (FDA, 2007). This can become problematic because

it is not a proper assessment for long term exposure.

Generation Y is the first generation of humans that can be used to study long term effects

of genetically modified foods. Because of this, along with the absence of allocation of funds for

research, evidence is lacking to support harmful effects of genetically altered food. As time

progresses, hopefully more in depth research will be done on the matter of health. GM

technology is still relatively new and there are certainly kinks that still need to be worked out.

One link has already been made between the introduction of GM foods and the increasing

trend in food allergies. The first genetically modified crop was grown in 1987. It was not until

1992 that the FDA ruled genetically modified organisms were “not inherently dangerous”. Two

years later, in 1996, the first genetically modified food was made available to consumers

(Brookes & Barfoot, 2005). Today, many of the products available to consumers contain

unlabeled GMOs. Over the past twenty years, wheat has been altered for pest resistance and

high yield producing the unintended consequence of an increased concentration of gluten (Baker,

Hawkins, Ward, Napier, Shewry & Beale, 2006); The US Center for Disease Control and

Prevention, CDCP, reported an 18% increase of food allergies in children from 1997 to 2007

(CDCP, 2013). Later studies show food allergies on the rise. However, the correlation between

the increase in allergies and the introduction of GM crops are merely speculative. Fear of

genetic modification in foods continues to rise with the possibility of the creation of new

allergens (Lehrer & Bannon, 2005). The rise of new diseases and pests resistant to current

antibiotics from GM crops is low but still exists (Keese, 2008). The possibility of a crop

designed for livestock accidentally being made available to consumers is an alarming concern as

well.


The largest consumer of GMOs surprisingly is not humans, though they become the

largest consumer indirectly causing potential health concerns. Genetic mutation is a possible

long term side effect of GMO consumption. Farmers utilize GM feeds on their livestock.

Livestock that ingest modified food that had been altered for a resistance against disease was

most likely altered by an antibiotic, which does not digest readily, but rather the modified gene

stays inside the host and is absorbed into the body of the consumer (Sharma, Damgaard,

Alexander, Dugan, Aalhus, Stanford & McAllister, 2006). Humans are unknowingly ingesting

these modified genes in the meats made available to them. This could cause the introduction of a

new antibiotic when it is not necessary. As a result, current bacterium and diseases could

become resistant to the antibiotic used in the modified crop, creating super-diseases, or diseases

that are unaffected by the presence of antibiotics (Keese 2008).

Studies have been performed on several different animal species on the long term effects

of ingesting GM feeds. The most notable study was performed on a group of pigs and sheep

throughout their lifetime, from birth to slaughter. The animals were fed a diet that consisted of

fifteen percent Roundup Ready Canola. Post-mortem, gastrointestinal cells were analyzed

among others and compared with the cells of animals only fed non GMO feed. Modified DNA

was not found in visceral organs but they were found throughout the intestinal tract (Sharma et

al., 2006). Another study was done on four different groups of rats. One group was fed GM

corn that can be found in foods for human consumption around the world, another group was fed

a modified food for tolerance of the herbicide Roundup, while the third group ingested a feed

that was modified for pest resistance. Each case was compared with the fourth group of rats that

did not ingest GM feeds. The kidney and liver were the most affected organs. These are the

organs that aid in toxicity filtration. The amount of toxicity was dependent on which type of

corn the rat ingested. Other major organs such as the heart and spleen were also affected (de

Vendomois, Roullier, Cellier & Seralini 2009). Physiological changes have been found in

animals from the ingestion of foods with modified genes. Both tests were done in a time span of

less than one year, giving rise to the possibility of increased harm with ingestion over time.

The main ingredient in Round Up is glyphosate, which can be sprayed directly on crops

modified to be Roundup-Ready. The produce received direct contact with the herbicide.


Without proper sanitation techniques, the herbicide can easily be ingested by an unsuspecting

individual. Research has shown that glyphosate is an endocrine disruptor. It can lead to a slow

degradation of the internal human systems beginning at the cellular level (Ando & Khanna

2000). Other ingredients in Round Up can pose a harmful health threat when mixed with the

main component glyphosate (Bradberry, Proudfoot, & Vale 2004).

Cross breeding from the seed distribution from wind and pollinating insects has created

super weeds that are drought resistant, pest resistant, and resistant to herbicides. Roundup Ready

alfalfa has passed on mutated resistance traits to naturally occurring alfalfa. This change has

been observed in multiple sites across the country. Plants that cross pollinate with each other to

produce fruit like corn could cause the GM crop to cross pollinate with conventional crops. The

possibility of the modified crop transferring the mutated gene to wild relatives through weed

crop hybridization creating a super-weed has raised concerns (Ando et al., 2000). These super-

weeds, depending on what the GM crop was modified for, could be resistant to roundup.

Along with super-weeds, super-pests cause considerable environmental concern. As

history would unfold, life adapts and morphs when faced with a destructive roadblock.

Adaptation and evolution occur at the rate of an organism’s life cycle. Insects could have

thousands of life cycles in one weeks’ time. With a short life span, the insect has a shorter time

to adapt, thus within years crops altered for pest resistant will no longer be able to perform the

desired task (Ando et al., 2000). The mutations have the possibility of harming the digestive

tracts of the animals that feed off the organism and decrease biodiversity. Crops modified to

deter pests could cause harm to bystander and beneficial insects. Insects such as the ladybugs

and praying mantises are a valuable asset to the garden. Pollinators are necessary for fruit

bearing crops. The crop’s modified gene cannot distinguish between a harmful insect and one

that is to aid the growth of the plant (Ando et al., 2000).

The potential for the spread of GM crops to the natural world could have detrimental

effects on biodiversity. The dispersion into the natural world could label the GM crop as an

invasive species and an agricultural weed (Connor, Glare & Nap 2003). This introduction of the

GM weed could reduce plant biodiversity and cause harm to the animals that feed on those

plants. GM alfalfa has already been caught outside cropland (Ando et al., 2000). GM crops as


invasive species can become problematic from the level of difficulty raised from eliminating the

invader. If not removed properly, the nonnative plant will continue to invade and remove

valuable nutrients from the soil in the process.

Genetically modified crops and food are a controversial topic with heavily weighted

economic benefits against potential detrimental health and environmental effects. The addition

of GM crops has given farmers a fighting economic chance against pests of a changing

environment. Biotechnology corporations benefit from the promotion and sale of their

technology, while consumers are able to enjoy a variety of fruits and vegetables year round at a

low premium. The benefits of the deregulation of GM crops are both economic and short term.

Currently, the length of time used to test the safety of a GM crop for human and animal

consumption is too short to yield any long term results. The long term effects of the cultivation

of GM crops have slowly been becoming more prevalent. Correlations between the introduction

of GMOs and the rise in allergies have been sited. Scientists have begun to see changes in

internal organs of long term (90+ days) test subjects. Risks of Round Up and the main

ingredient glyphosate are becoming more apparent as the substance is studied. The potential

ecological devastation from the change in biodiversity with the addition of super-diseases, super-

weeds, and super-pests is alarming and could reduce the population of competitors. GM crops, if

not contained, could become an invasive species and an agricultural weed adding to the declining

biodiversity.

The Farmer Assurance Provision has called for the deregulation of GM crops until the

environmental assessment has been completed. The long term risk being taken by cultivating the

GM crops without the knowledge of the possible health and environmental effects is an epidemic

waiting to happen. However, the short term economic gains are merely for convenience.

Farmers still meet their budget through the farm bill. Consumers may be inconvenienced with

the unavailability of out of season products without GM crops. Biotechnology corporations are

the only ones who would be more than inconvenienced if GM crops were to be banned. For the

sake of the biotechnology corporations, human, animal, and environmental health is being put at

risk through the passing of the Farmer Assurance Provision.


References

Ando, A. W., and Khanna, M., (2000), Environmental Costs and Benefits of Genetically

Modified Crops, Implications in Regulatory Strategies. The American Behaviorial

Scientist, 44.3, 435-63. Print.

Baker, J. M., Hawkins, N. D., Ward, J.L., Lovegrove, A., Napier, J.S., Shewry, P.R. and Beale,

M. H., (2006), A Metabolomic Study of Substantial Equivalence of Field-Grown

Genetically Modified Wheat. Plant Biotechnology Journa,l 4.4, 381-92. Print.

Bradberry S.M., Proudfoot A.T., Vale J.A. (2004). Glyphosate Poisoning. Toxicological

Reviews 23.3, 159–67. Print

Brookes, G., & Barfoot, P. (2005). GM crops: The global economic and environmental impact -

the first nine years 1996-2004. AgBioForum, 8(2&3), 187-196.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Food Allergies in School. Centers for Disease

Control and Prevention, 31 Oct. 2013. Web. 25 Nov. 2013.

Center For Food Safety Vs. Thomas J. Vilsack. United States District Court For The Northern

District Of California. 13 Aug. 2010. Print.

Chassy, B. M., (2007), The History and Future of GMOs in Food and Agriculture. Cereal Foods

World 52.4, 169-72. Print.

Conner, A.J. Glare, T.R. Nap, J. (2003), The release of genetically modified crops into the

environment. Plant Journal, 33, 19–46.

De Ponti, T., Rijk, B. & Van Ittersum, M. K., (2012), The Crop Yield Gap between Organic and

Conventional Agriculture. Agricultural Systems, 108, 1-9. Print.

De Vendomois, J. S., Roullier, F., Cellier, D. & Seralini, G.-E., (2009), A Comparison of the

Effects of Three GM Corn Varieties on Mammalian Health. International Journal of

Biological Sciences, 5.7: 706-26. Print.

Haub, C. & Kaneda, T., (2013), 2013 World Population Datasheet. Population Reference

Bureau. Population Reference Bureau, Sept. 2013. Web. 25 Nov. 2013.

Hossay, P. (2013, November 21). Trade and the Environment. Environmental Policy and

Law Class. Lecture conducted from Galloway, New Jersey.


Frewer, L. J., Scholderer, J. & Bredahl, L., (2003), Communicating about the Risks and Benefits

of Genetically Modified Foods: The Mediating Role of Trust. Risk Analysis 23.6, 1117-

1133. Print.

H.R. 933, 113 Cong., 159 (2013) (enacted). Print.

H.R. 2642, 113 Cong., House Committee on Agrictulure (2013) (enacted). Print.

H.R. 5973, 112th Cong., 542 U.S. G.P.O. (2012) (enacted). Print.

Hodson, M. J. & Bryant, J.A., (2012), Functional Biology of Plants. Chichester, West Sussex,

UK: Wiley-Blackwell, 2012. Print.

Jones, L., (1999), Science, Medicine, and the Future: Genetically Modified Foods. BMJ: British

Medical Journal, 318.7183: 581-84. Web.

Keese, P. (2008). Risks from GMOs due to horizontal gene transfer. Environmental Biosafety

Research, 7(3): 123-149.

Kuiper, H. A., & Kleter, G. K., (2001), Assessment of the Food Safety Issues Related to

Genetically Modified Foods. The Plant Journal, 27.6: 503-28. Print.

Lehrer, S. B. and Bannon, G. A. (2005), Risks of allergic reactions to biotech proteins in foods:

perception and reality. Allergy, 60: 559–564.

Parcell, J. L. & Kalaitzandonakes, N. G., (2004), Do Agricultural Commodity Prices Respond to

Bans Against Bioengineered Crops? Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 52:

201-09. Print.

Rogers, D. (2013, March 25). Big Agriculture Flexes its Muscles. Politico. Retrieved from

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/03/big-agriculture-tom-vilsack-monsanto-

89268.html

Sharma, R., Damgaard, D., Alexander, T. W., Dugan, M. E., Aalhus, J. L., Stanford, K., &

McAllister, T. S., (2006), Detection of Transgenic and Endogenous Plant DNA in

Digesta and Tissues of Sheep and Pigs Fed Roundup Ready Canola Meal. Journal of

Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 54.5: 1699-709. Print.

U.S. Department of Agriculture/Animal and Plant Health Inspection Services. (2011). Monsanto

Company and KWS SAAT AG; Decision With Respect to the Petition for Partial

Deregulation of Genetically Engineered Roundup Ready Sugar Beets. Washington D.C.

U.S. Department of Agriculture/Animal and Plant Health Inspection Services. (2010). Petition

03-323-0Ip for Non-Regulated Status, Roundup ReadV® Sugarbeet -I; Event H7


Supplemcntal Regucst for "Partial Deregulation" or Similar Administrative Action.

Washington D.C.: Reding, H. K.

U. S. Department of Agriculture/Economic Research Service. (2009). Tight Supplies Expected to

Sustain High U.S. Sugar Prices into 2009/10/1. Washington D.C.: Dohlman, E. & Haley,

S.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services/Food and Drug Administration. (2007).

Guidance for Industry and Other Stakeholders Toxicological Principles for The Safety

Assessment of Food Ingredients.: Washington D.C.

U. S. Department of Health and Human Services/Food and Drug Administration. Statement of

Policy - Foods Derived from New Plant Varieties. Washington D. C.: Kessler, D. A.

environmental policy research paper final submission

Documents